A study of atheism worldwide

[warpus]

I am not really sure I would label someone that believes in Shinto or Buddism an athiest or even if they would self-label themselves as atheists per se.

It doesn't matter what you label them as or what they label themselves as... If they do not believe in the existence of a God, then they are atheist. That's what the word means.

I would label people weak christians as opposed to weak atheists.

You are grasping at straws here.. There is a very simple way of determining whether someone is atheist or not - you ask them if they believe that God exists or not. If they do not have this belief, then they are atheist, no matter what religious institutions they may be affiliated with.

In the U.S. the word atheist is often used to refer to someone who is not religious. .. but that's not what the word means at all.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

It doesn't matter what you label them as or what they label themselves as... If they do not believe in the existence of a God, then they are atheist. That's what the word means.

But "god" can be a pretty broad term.

 

[MobBoss]

I think, as stated already - the problem is that most of this data is not obtained via polling, but from old public records.

What do you think a census is?

Most people are not born Atheist - they become them. I personally was born and raised Catholic, and didn't make the switch to the "dark side" until my late teens. There is no public record that has that fact recorded.

If you were given a census sheet today and the choice 'atheist' is among the religous choices, would you today mark the choice atheist?

If so, your arguement attempting to discount census data is moot.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

And one can be both atheist and religious, or conversely neither religious nor atheist.

 

[warpus]

But "god" can be a pretty broad term.

Yeah.. There are many sorts of God you can believe in. It doesn't matter which one - you won't be atheist if you do.

Is that what you're hinting at?

 

[MobBoss]

It doesn't matter what you label them as or what they label themselves as... If they do not believe in the existence of a God, then they are atheist. That's what the word means.

So, you have no problem labeling someone who prays to spirits and offers up sacrifice/burnt incense to them as an atheist?

 

[Truronian]

So, you have no problem labeling someone who prays to spirits and offers up sacrifice/burnt incense to them as an atheist?

If they don't believe in a god, why not?

 

[Masquerouge]

Regarding Israel, I thought it was well-known that you can be atheist and jew, since judaism encompass much more than simply religion. Israel is a secular jewish state, for instance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_state

 

[warpus]

So, you have no problem labeling someone who prays to spirits and offers up sacrifice/burnt incense to them as an atheist?

If they specifically do not believe in God, then that's what they are - atheist, so that's what I would label them as.

A belief in the supernatural doesn't necessarily equate to a belief in God. There are atheists who believe that ghosts exist, etc.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Yeah.. There are many sorts of God you can believe in. It doesn't matter which one - you won't be atheist if you do.

Is that what you're hinting at?

Pretty much. This study might not be all that useful without going into detail if some of the atheists are religious, and thus have more in common socially with some of the religious theists than the irreligious atheists.

 

[Winner]

The Churches are doomed to lose the powerful positions they once held (and still hold in some places). But religions will continue forever IMO, though they will be more personal and less political.

World would be wonderful if it looked like you described. I am sick of religion meddling into politics.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Unfortunately, religion isn't going away. Atheism's popularity appears to come in cycles, with peaks and troughs. For example, atheism was widespread c. 400 BC to c. 200 AD but then went into a big downturn until the Renaissance (c. 1500), when it had another upswing that went into the Enlightenment. It seemed to have levelled off in the 19th century until about recently, when religion seems to be coming back with a vengeance.

Religion is here to stay, but there's no guarantee that it will look the same in 100 years as it does today. Religion has remarkable adaptability in that it is constantly reinterpreting itself. Because the vast bulk of humanity remains anxious over many answered questions of existence, there will always be a demand for religion.

 

[warpus]

For example, atheism was widespread c. 400 BC to c. 200 AD

Source? ......

 

[Japanrocks12]

my belief is that people are capable of being logical and rational, regardless of their level of education, and not everybody sees the existence of a god being logically unsound. even though the ontological arguments or whatever have been thoroughly disproven, their conviction is like that.

 

[nivi]

Israel is one of the most religious places on earth.

It is also one of the most secular.

What can I say, Israel is full of contrast.

 

[puglover]

So what do you make of the fact that atheism is mostly present in rich, developed countries (Vietnam being the anomaly)? Is it a consequence, or a cause?

Perhaps it's because with everything a Western middleclassman could ever want avaliable to him, he believes he's more self-sufficent. Someone in another country might have more to pray for. Just a theory.

 

[Masquerouge]

Perhaps it's because with everything a Western middleclassman could ever want avaliable to him, he believes he's more self-sufficent. Someone in another country might have more to pray for. Just a theory.

So a purely materialistic explanation? Nothing to do with, for instance, education?

 

[Japanrocks12]

So a purely materialistic explanation? Nothing to do with, for instance, education?

I doubt it, because once again, you link education to atheism because you believe that higher education reflects a more logical process of thought, but you fail to account that humans have the capability to be logical fundamentally. And you also fail to acknowledge that belief in a faith and logical soundness are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Masquerouge]

I doubt it, because once again, you link education to atheism because you believe that higher education reflects a more logical process of thought, but you fail to account that humans have the capability to be logical fundamentally. And you also fail to acknowledge that belief in a faith and logical soundness are not mutually exclusive.

You fail to understand my post.
It was an answer to Puglover's post, which seems to say that people lose faith as their needs are fulfilled.
And thus I was asking Puglover if he tought that other things could explain that loss of faith in Western society.

And for the record, and I have stated that in multiple threads here in the past, I have always acknowledged than faith and logical soundness are not mutually exclusive (mostly because they have nothing to do with each other).

I am under the impression that you assume I'm trying to prove religion wrong or illogical. I'm not. I'm just trying do discuss why atheism is mostly prominent in Western, developed countries.

I doubt it, because once again, you link education to atheism because you believe that higher education reflects a more logical process of thought

Once again? Where did I say that? Point it to me please.

EDIT: You aren't confusing me with StarWorms, by any chance? He said in post #6:

Simple: Better education means people no longer look to illogical explanations, and instead look to logical explanations.

 

[Japanrocks12]

You fail to understand my post.
It was an answer to Puglover's post, which seems to say that people lose faith as their needs are fulfilled.
And thus I was asking Puglover if he tought that other things could explain that loss of faith in Western society.

And for the record, and I have stated that in multiple threads here in the past, I have always acknowledged than faith and logical soundness are not mutually exclusive (mostly because they have nothing to do with each other).

I am under the impression that you assume I'm trying to prove religion wrong or illogical. I'm not. I'm just trying do discuss why atheism is mostly prominent in Western, developed countries.

and I'm trying to do the exact same, but I'm being cautious not to use education as a factor, but rather the material lifestyles. that's IF we need to look at overarching societal issues at all, since there are a myriad more personal issues that influence the statistic. I was explaining to you why I'm apprehensive about saying that more education results in more atheism.